T.M. Sampath vs Uoi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 4090 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 23rd August, 2011


+                         WP(C) NO.7509/2008


T.M. SAMPATH                                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Petitioner in person.

                                    Versus

UOI & ORS                                                ..... Respondents
                          Through: Mr. Raman Oberoi, Advocate for R-1.
                          Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs for R-2.


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may       Not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?               Not necessary

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported              Not necessary
       in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment

of the respondent no.3 Shri M.P. Gupta to the post of Director (Finance) in

the respondent no.2 National Water Development Agency (hereinafter

referred to as NWDA), an autonomous body functioning under the

respondent no.1 Ministry of Water Resources.

2. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim

relief to restrain the respondent no.3 from functioning at the said post.

Notice of the Writ Petition was issued but the interim relief declined.

Counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. Pleadings were completed.

However finding that the NWDA had been notified under Section 14 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, vide order dated 11th December, 2009,

the matter was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. The said

Tribunal vide order dated 26th March, 2010 finding that the challenge by the

petitioner to the appointment of the respondent no.3 was in the nature of a

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and on the basis of State of Uttaranchal v.

Balwant Singh Chausal 2010 (1) SCALE 492 holding that the Tribunal is

not empowered to entertain a PIL, sent the matter back to this Court. The

petitioner appearing in person and the counsels for the respondents have

been heard.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.2 NWDA has, at the outset

challenged the locus of the petitioner to maintain the challenge. The

petitioner herein is not claiming himself to be entitled to the post

appointment whereto is under challenge. His argument simplicitor is that

NWDA had in the year 2001 invited applications for filling up the said post

on deputation; that the respondent no.3 had joined the same on deputation

for a period of four years but NWDA thereafter regularized the appointment

without inviting any fresh applications. The counsel for the respondent no.2

NWDA relying on Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998)

7 SCC 273 has contended that a stranger to the service concerned cannot be

a person aggrieved so as to have the locus to challenge the appointment.

Attention in this regard is also invited to B. Srinivasa Reddy v Karnataka

Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association AIR

2006 SCC 3106 laying down that in service jurisprudence it is for the

aggrieved person i.e. the non appointee to assail the legality or correctness of

the action and that third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or

correctness of the action. It was further held that public law declaration of

legality of appointment would be made only at the behest of a public

spirited person coming before the Court. The counsel for the respondent has

further contended that the petitioner herein cannot be said to be such a public

spirited person inasmuch as the petitioner has been filing various complaints

and litigation against the respondent no.3, considering himself aggrieved

from the respondent no.3 having made an adverse Annual Appraisal Report

of the petitioner. Reliance is further placed on Dr. Devinder Gupta v.

Union of India 128(2006) DLT 337 where also it was held that though the

rule of locus standi is relaxed in case of writ of quo warranto but that does

not mean that anybody can file a petition for a writ of quo warranto

challenging any appointment to any post in the country even though he may

not have any direct connection or grievance or interest in the matter.

4. The petitioner in the present case is also an employee of the NWDA

and admits that at one time the respondent no.3 was the immediate superior

of the petitioner and had made an adverse Annual Appraisal Report of the

petitioner.

5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have disclosed as many as

13 writ petitions before this Court and 10 original applications before the

Tribunal, filed by the petitioner and which were not disclosed by the

petitioner in the petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal in one of the

said proceedings instituted by the petitioner observed that the petitioner is

suffering from paranoia without any convincing proof.

6. The petitioner during the hearing has drawn attention to the following:

a) The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491. I

however fail to see as to how the said judgment is apposite. The Apex

Court in the said judgment held that before a writ of quo warranto can

be claimed, the petitioner has to satisfy the Court that the office in

question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal

authority. It was held that if the appointment was shown to be

inconsistent with the qualification as they were advertised, that itself

would justify the issue of a writ of quo warranto.

b) Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India (1992) 2 SCC 428.

However this judgment again is found to be not apposite.

c) Mocherla Venkataraya Sarma v. Y. Sivarama Prasad AIR 1961 AP

250 laying down that a writ of quo warranto would lie even at the

instance of the petitioner who has no personal interest in the matter.

However, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

aforesaid and in view of the petitioner having a personal animosity

with the respondent no.3, the said judgment also is not found apposite.

7. The petitioner in his rejoinder has also referred to Dr. Kashinath G.

Jalmi v. The Speaker (1993) 2 SCC 703 but that is on the aspect of laches.

8. I may also notice that the respondent no.3 originally appointed on

deputation has been absorbed in accordance with para 10 of the DOPT OM

No. AB-14017/71/89-Estt(RR) dated 3rd October, 1989.

9. I am, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, of the opinion that

the petition purportedly filed in public interest is in fact motivated and even

otherwise no case of usurpation of any public office without authority is

made out. The petition is therefore dismissed. I refrain from imposing any

costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) August 23, 2011 M